I’m pointing out that the individual desire to increase personal happiness beyond basic needs for reproduction, significantly outweighs their desire to end that same extreme poverty condition for others.
This might be a “duh” but the point is that my hypothesis is that this is a learned/taught perspective, and based on a foundational idea that is no longer true, aka a myth.
We already have solutions. They are based around the principle of economic democracy.
It is a simple three step solution:
1. Identify sources of wealth that cannot be reproduced and therefore be hoarded to exclude access
2. Let the government tax or own the asset and grant every citizen equal rights to the asset in question.
3. Let people perform the act of producing reproducible assets on their own, now that they have the ability to do so.
Extreme hypothetical: AGI is real and everyone has a personal AGI. Given enough energy the AGI can produce anything in autarky. The primary resource that matters in this hypothetical economy is access to energy. Most people in today's society are born without any access to energy. Their access to energy is conditional upon performing labor, but labor is worthless in the hypothetical economy, therefore people without access to energy will simply die out.
There are many forms of economic democracy such as Freiwirtschaft or Georgism. These "economic systems" are built around the idea that non-reproducible assets should be taxed over time to prevent hoarding.
> the individual desire to increase personal happiness beyond basic needs for reproduction, significantly outweighs their desire to end that same extreme poverty condition for others...my hypothesis is that this is a learned/taught perspective, and based on a foundational idea that is no longer true, aka a myth.
I think you're missing my point. My point is that, before we even get to your hypothesis about why the claim you make is true, we first need to agree that it is true. And I don't think it is. I think people in developed countries have a significant desire to help people in less developed countries--but our political system, which allows corrupt governments to stay in power even though their actions are making their people starve, frustrates that desire. We have been sending huge amounts of aid to the Third World for more than half a century, and we continue to do so, but it hasn't helped and it isn't helping.
In other words, to the extent that people in developed countries believe that they might as well focus on increasing their own personal happiness, it's because they don't see that trying to help people in less developed countries accomplishes anything. That is indeed a "learned perspective", but it's learned from actual experience of the effects of aid over the past half century and more, not from any kind of "myth" about scarcity. Indeed, if people in developed countries really believed that resources like food were scarce, we wouldn't have been sending all that aid to less developed countries for more than half a century. It's precisely because we know that we have excess resources and can afford to send them elsewhere to help, that there has been widespread political support in developed countries for sending all that aid. Any reduction in that support doesn't come from beliefs about scarcity; it comes from observing that the actual consequences of the aid are not the intended ones.
(Note, btw, that the existence of "excess resources" in developed countries for things like food depends on people in those countries creating wealth over and above the needs of bare subsistence. So "the individual desire to increase personal happiness beyond basic needs" in developed countries is required in order for there to be excess basic needs to be sent as aid to less developed countries.)
Your perspective boils down to “we’ve already tried to and failed.”
To which I would argue, in fact, we have not tried it, even barely
Actually trying would look more like the following:
The children who are currently mining for Mica for beauty products on behalf of LoReal would be stockholders outright of stock in LVM, as a result of their work, not literal slaves
You are suggesting that the process that we have used so far, which is individually determined capital redistribution via means that pick apart the donation through service fees, middleman functions, etc.
This is what you are suggesting is trying?
No. What I’m saying is that the people who hoard wealth and power will hoard more wealth and power up until socially that is no longer acceptable. we need to determine ways to distribute or rather, not steal in the first place, the value that labor is creating.
> Your perspective boils down to “we’ve already tried to and failed.”
We have already tried "redistributing wealth" by having rich countries give stuff to poor countries, yes. And yes, it has failed.
> Actually trying would look more like the following:
The children who are currently mining for Mica for beauty products on behalf of LoReal would be stockholders outright of stock in LVM, as a result of their work, not literal slaves
Ok, fine, but how am I, as a citizen of the US, supposed to make this happen? Isn't it a matter of the political system in the country where this is going on? What does any of this have to do with how I, as a citizen of the US, make use of the wealth I have helped to create?
> the people who hoard wealth and power will hoard more wealth and power up until socially that is no longer acceptable.
As I asked you in another post upthread, what's your definition of "hoarding"? Am I, as a citizen of the US, hoarding wealth and power because I have retirement savings and because I choose to spend money on things that are not, strictly speaking, necessities of life? (Which includes the means of participating in this very discussion; the forum we are using, and the underlying infrastructure that makes it possible, would not exist if everyone just focused on the necessities of life.)
> we need to determine ways to distribute or rather, not steal in the first place, the value that labor is creating
In a free market, that distribution occurs automatically, because people get paid according to the marginal value they create. While I am totally in favor of people having ownership shares in things like factories, the reason for that is not that it "distributes wealth better" but that it increases the marginal value that a person can create, and therefore increases their income by straightforward free market economics. (It also, though, comes with taking on increased risk, because as an owner you are directly exposed to all the business risks that a wage-earning employee offloads to their employer. Some people prefer not to make that tradeoff.)
If all that isn't happening, the obvious solution is to fix whatever political issue is making the market not free and therefore preventing it from happening. Again, that has nothing to do with what I, as a citizen of the US, choose to do with the wealth I have helped to create.
I don’t suggest a solution
I’m pointing out that the individual desire to increase personal happiness beyond basic needs for reproduction, significantly outweighs their desire to end that same extreme poverty condition for others.
This might be a “duh” but the point is that my hypothesis is that this is a learned/taught perspective, and based on a foundational idea that is no longer true, aka a myth.